大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 11.3

11.3

疏「一多相即混無障礙，解行境別六句同前」者，二句數料揀也。於中，初句結前。含於四句，應云一者一即多；二者多即一；三者亦一即多、亦多即一，合上二故，故三句皆是一多相即；四非一即多、非多即一，亦由一多相即互相奪故，謂由一即多故非多即一、由多即一故非一即多，成俱泯句；五或具前四，以是解境並明照故；六或絕前五，以是行境言亡慮絕故。疏云解行境別，即下二句。然約同一類法，即有一多相望，如一華葉望諸葉等。若約異類，謂華望剎等，例此可知。復應例前亦有四句，謂一者一即一、二者一即一切、三一切即一、四一切即一切。以今但約一華，故略不言。故下結例，該一切法明具四也。或應有六，此四句後有解行境故。復或有六，謂前四句後加一即多一、多即一多故。復應成八，加多一即一、多一即多，以並不出前四句故，故不例耳。多一既爾，大小長短等一一相即例知。然《刊定記》將相即門揀異同體成即德，故云相即。據此，彼相望同體相即，約此體即是一切法故。若爾，則是託事顯法門。今疏正意，但以相即門攝同體成即，同體成但是一即多耳。疏「下云」下，三引證。即〈十住品〉長行文。若偈云「一即是多多即一，文隨於義義隨文。如是一切展轉成，此不退人應為說。」既言展轉成者，即異體異類相望也。〈不思議法品〉云「諸佛知一切佛語即一佛語」，此同類相即也。初〈發心品〉云「以發心故，即與三世一切諸佛體性平等。」乃至云「真實智慧」等者，此顯位上下相即也。七十八經云「彌勒告大眾言：『諸仁者！餘諸菩薩經無量百千億那由他劫，乃能滿足菩薩行願，乃能親近諸佛菩薩。此長者子，於一生內則能淨佛剎、則能化眾生、則能以智慧深入法界、則能成就諸波羅蜜、則能增廣一切諸行、則能圓滿一切大願、則能超出一切魔業、則能承事一切善友、則能清淨諸菩薩道、則能具足普賢諸行。』」此則行位皆相即也。又如菩薩曾不分身即遍一切，亦一即多也。

Where the Commentary says, “The one and the many are mutually identical, seamlessly unobstructed; the spheres of understanding and practice are distinct, with the six propositions as before,” this is secondly to evaluate the number of propositions. In this, the first phrase concludes what precedes. Containing four propositions, it should say: first, the one is identical with the many; second, the many are identical with the one; third, the one is also identical with the many and the many are also identical with the one, because of combining the above two; hence these three propositions are all the mutual identity of the one and the many; fourth, the one is not identical with the many, nor are the many identical with the one, which is also because the mutual identity of the one and the many mutually negates each other—meaning that because the one is identical with the many, the many are not identical with the one, and because the many are identical with the one, the one is not identical with the many, forming a proposition of mutual obliteration; fifth, it perhaps possesses all four of the preceding, because it is the sphere of understanding, clearly illuminating them together; sixth, it perhaps cuts off all five of the preceding, because it is the sphere of practice, where words are forgotten and conceptual thought is cut off. Where the Commentary says that the spheres of understanding and practice are distinct, this refers to the latter two propositions. However, in terms of the same class of phenomena, there is the mutual relation of one and many, as one flower petal relative to all petals, and so forth. If in terms of different classes, as a flower relative to a world-system and so forth, it can be understood by analogy with this. By analogy with the previous, there should also be four propositions, namely: first, the one is identical with the one; second, the one is identical with all; third, all is identical with the one; fourth, all is identical with all. Because here it is discussed only in terms of a single flower, it is omitted and not spoken of. Thus, when concluding with the analogy below, it covers all phenomena, making clear that it possesses all four. Or there should be six, because after these four propositions there are the spheres of understanding and practice. Again, there may be six, meaning that after the previous four propositions, one adds: the one is identical with the multi-one, and the many are identical with the one-many. Furthermore, it should make eight, adding: the multi-one is identical with the one, and the multi-one is identical with the many; but because these do not go beyond the previous four propositions, they are not listed by analogy. The many and the one being thus, large and small, long and short, and so forth are each mutually identical and can be understood by analogy. However, the Kandingji, discriminating the door of mutual identity, sets apart identical essence to form the quality of identity, and thus calls it mutual identity. According to this, their mutual relation is the mutual identity of an identical essence, because this essence is itself all phenomena. If so, then it is the door of relying on phenomena to reveal principle. The main intention of the present Commentary, however, is merely that the door of mutual identity encompasses the identity of an identical essence; the identity of an identical essence is merely that the one is identical with the many. Where the Commentary says “Below it states,” this is thirdly to cite proof-texts. This is the prose text of the “Chapter on the Ten Abodes.” In verse it says: “The one is identical with the many, the many are identical with the one; the text follows the meaning, the meaning follows the text. In this way all are mutually accomplished in turn; to those who do not regress, this should be explained.” Since it says “mutually accomplished in turn,” this is the mutual relation of different essences and different classes. The “Chapter on Inconceivable Phenomena” states: “All Buddhas know that all Buddha-words are identical with a single Buddha-word”; this is mutual identity of the same class. The “Chapter on the Initial Arousal of the Mind” states: “By arousing the mind, one is immediately equal in essence with all Buddhas of the three periods of time,” up to saying “true wisdom” and so forth; this shows the mutual identity between the higher and lower stages. The seventy-eighth fascicle states: “Maitreya addressed the great assembly, saying: ‘Virtuous sirs! The other bodhisattvas, only after passing through immeasurable hundreds of thousands of koṭis of nayutas of eons, are able to fulfill the bodhisattva practices and vows, and are able to approach the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. This elder’s son, within a single lifetime, is able to purify Buddha-lands, able to transform sentient beings, able through wisdom to deeply enter the dharmadhātu, able to accomplish the pāramitās, able to broaden all practices, able to consummate all great vows, able to transcend all māra-actions, able to serve all good friends, able to purify all bodhisattva paths, and able to fully possess all practices of Samantabhadra.’” This is the mutual identity of both practices and stages. Moreover, just as a bodhisattva pervades all without ever dividing their body, this is also the one being identical with the many.